The greater accuracy of the larger ordnance may be to simulate 'splash damage'. A large weapon like the 800kg (17600lbs) AP would have a considerable blast radius. The splash damage from such ordnance can easily damage lighter ships, and (depending on proximity) even damage well armored ships like BBs.

While I can not say for certain this is the case, it is a safe assumption as to why it is the way it is.

As to the actual numbers, they integrate with the formulae implemented in the code - which I have no idea of so I can't even comment on the numbers or the difference in them (differences might be exaggerated or mitigated by the code).

I do recall discussion that heavier ordnance is found to be more accurate because it is more stable in flight including stabilizing more rapidly after release. I'm sure the greater stability has to do with greater sectional density for opposing air resistance, including cross-winds and turbulence. By sectional density I mean consider looking at the ordnance from any angle; the ratio of the weight behind the area that you see is greater for larger ordnance if the shapes are roughly the same.

One point to remember is that we have no idea about the formulae used in the code. A difference of 100% in the values in the scenario data might only result in a difference of 20% in results in the game, or it might result in 500% difference in results in the game.

In DaBabes several months ago they recalculated lots of ordnance to be consistent and as developers/former developers they (or at least the one doing the calculating - JWE) had access to the formulae used by the code. So they were able to set their numbers in the scenario files in harmony with the code.

seems to me like the mode of delivery needs to be more pronounced in the calculation (dive > glide > level with bombsight > no bombsight)

3) both posts above might be correct, i have no idea on this subject (but can ramble for hours about flight characteristics and wing loading )

On your point 1, this is not entirely true. I was able to cause a 'burn out' on an allied BB with multiple 250kg and 60kg hits. The BB did eventually sink, not from a single torpedo hit or ordnance penetration, but rather from raging fires and the inability to put them out before reaching port. There is a thread about it buried somewhere around here, showing just how the smaller ordnance hits completely stripped off the secondary weaponry and had fires at 99.

So the short of it is, yes every hit counts, no matter how small the ordnance. 1 or even a dozen 100kg hits might be shrugged off, but as those keep adding up, and as fires start there can be a significant effect on the target.

Then comes the question. Can fatal fire damage result from non-penetrating hits? Remember some of those tiger tanks being hit by 20+ sherman rounds to no effect

Seems like that is the reason the battleship was created. Impervious to small caliber rounds. And tanks do pretty well against HE artillery rounds that fail to penetrate.

If an AP round bounced off a Tiger Tank, it would probably end up causing a fire and a possible explosion half a mile from its intended victim. With a ship of any size, its almost certainly going to lodge somewhere in the superstructure and then do its diabolical task. Ships were not completely covered in armour, as some of the superstructure had to be relatively lightly armoured or not armoured at all because of weight distribution and the design no-no of making them top heavy. Just look at the design of the Russian 'Borodino' class ( 1902 ), and the French 'Marceau' class ( 1891, known as 'The Hotel' ) of battleships, to realize the folly of armouring too much of the superstructure.

_____________________________

Our lives may be more boring than those who lived in apocalyptic times, but being bored is greatly preferable to being prematurely dead because of some ideological fantasy.- Michael Burleigh

seems to me like the mode of delivery needs to be more pronounced in the calculation (dive > glide > level with bombsight > no bombsight)

3) both posts above might be correct, i have no idea on this subject (but can ramble for hours about flight characteristics and wing loading )

On your point 1, this is not entirely true. I was able to cause a 'burn out' on an allied BB with multiple 250kg and 60kg hits. The BB did eventually sink, not from a single torpedo hit or ordnance penetration, but rather from raging fires and the inability to put them out before reaching port. There is a thread about it buried somewhere around here, showing just how the smaller ordnance hits completely stripped off the secondary weaponry and had fires at 99.

So the short of it is, yes every hit counts, no matter how small the ordnance. 1 or even a dozen 100kg hits might be shrugged off, but as those keep adding up, and as fires start there can be a significant effect on the target.

I have seen this multiple times.

It seems to take about 25 500 pounders, which never penetrate, to cause enough system/fire damage to leave the BB a burning hulk which equates to "sunk" in game terms.

As it should be. About half of a BB is not armored. In superstructure only the conning tower is armored which is tiny part of the tower. Then main turrets, only in rare cases the secondaries are heavily armored. Then the armor starts not at main deck level but usually below it. So there are many places to penetrate.

Totally wrong. Armored part of ship prevent from sinking with flooded stern and bow. DD can sunk BB only with one weapon - torpedoes. It why this class was invented. Yamato died only after dozen torpedoes and wrong junction of armor belt and torpedo defence + not enough volume against new torpedo warheads. But 4-5 inches useless against central citadel and dont make enough flooding/listing in bow/stern. South Dacota have same armor scheme but under heavy fire of Kirishima/Takao/Atago/DDs she dont sunk!

Then comes the question. Can fatal fire damage result from non-penetrating hits? Remember some of those tiger tanks being hit by 20+ sherman rounds to no effect

Seems like that is the reason the battleship was created. Impervious to small caliber rounds. And tanks do pretty well against HE artillery rounds that fail to penetrate.

If an AP round bounced off a Tiger Tank, it would probably end up causing a fire and a possible explosion half a mile from its intended victim. With a ship of any size, its almost certainly going to lodge somewhere in the superstructure and then do its diabolical task. Ships were not completely covered in armour, as some of the superstructure had to be relatively lightly armoured or not armoured at all because of weight distribution and the design no-no of making them top heavy. Just look at the design of the Russian 'Borodino' class ( 1902 ), and the French 'Marceau' class ( 1891, known as 'The Hotel' ) of battleships, to realize the folly of armouring too much of the superstructure.

Or more to the point, only 'vital' areas of a ship are armored. That is the magazines, engineering, the tower and the turrets. Many ships do not even have an armored belt that extends the entire length of the ship (the forecastle and fantail may have no armor at all). These unarmored areas which are not considered vital can easily be penetrated by even the smallest ordnance, and a fire started in these areas will spread.

Also, there is the fact that many ships of that era had wooden (allies) or linoleum (japanese) decks...that is the covering of the armored deck. Those materials burn readily.

Then there is the fact that your small calibre guns (AAA for example) have a number of ready rounds at the gun site that are essentially open and exposed.

Paint will burn as well. Don't forget the crew accommodations...lots of fabric there from cot mattresses, sheets and clothing.

Most of the ordnance dropped from a WWII bomber was an HE type, even if it were an armor penetrating device it still made a boom. And once a fire gets hot enough, it will cause structural damage...weakened beams, buckling hull-plates, etc.

As it should be. About half of a BB is not armored. In superstructure only the conning tower is armored which is tiny part of the tower. Then main turrets, only in rare cases the secondaries are heavily armored. Then the armor starts not at main deck level but usually below it. So there are many places to penetrate.

I love it when Middle School kiddles try to tell us how things happened. I mean they are so deficient in math. They have to take remedial algebra, in college, for gosh sakes. So no wonder they don’t know jack.

Armor was designed for an immunity zone. Inside the zone, a smaller gun will penetrate. Sad to say to the little pre-teens, but ballistics is a science and it’s not hard to figure out. It just takes 9th grade mathemetics (7th grade when I went to school, but probably college remedial these days).

Any Allied gun, larger than 6”, WILL penetrate Yamato’s belt armor. The US 6” Mk-27, base-fuzed shell, WILL penetrate Yamato’s belt armor. Alas, the US 6” Mk-35 is damn close, but no cigar; And smaller than that won’t do the deed.

I am always surprised by this reasoning. The fact that 12 were put in her doesn't means that for example first 4 couldn't do the job. I am not saying that 4 will do just that we don't know the true strength of Yamato.

quote:

Totally wrong. Armored part of ship prevent from sinking with flooded stern and bow.

How much free armored board will have an Yamato with bow and stern full of water. With full hull integrity you have only one deck armored above water level, maybe 2 if the ship is lighter at end of mission.

I love it when Middle School kiddles try to tell us how things happened. I mean they are so deficient in math. They have to take remedial algebra, in college, for gosh sakes. So no wonder they don’t know jack.

Armor was designed for an immunity zone. Inside the zone, a smaller gun will penetrate. Sad to say to the little pre-teens, but ballistics is a science and it’s not hard to figure out. It just takes 9th grade mathemetics (7th grade when I went to school, but probably college remedial these days).

Any Allied gun, larger than 6”, WILL penetrate Yamato’s belt armor. The US 6” Mk-27, base-fuzed shell, WILL penetrate Yamato’s belt armor. Alas, the US 6” Mk-35 is damn close, but no cigar; And smaller than that won’t do the deed.

How much free armored board will have an Yamato with bow and stern full of water. With full hull integrity you have only one deck armored above water level, maybe 2 if the ship is lighter at end of mission.

Nice try. Problem is Yamato designed as armored box in centership. It mean he stay floated even if turrets in water. BOX. Not armored fence like Nelson armor protection which mean if water touch damaged non-protected deck it PLOP.

I love it when Middle School kiddles try to tell us how things happened. I mean they are so deficient in math. They have to take remedial algebra, in college, for gosh sakes. So no wonder they don’t know jack.

Armor was designed for an immunity zone. Inside the zone, a smaller gun will penetrate. Sad to say to the little pre-teens, but ballistics is a science and it’s not hard to figure out. It just takes 9th grade mathemetics (7th grade when I went to school, but probably college remedial these days).

Any Allied gun, larger than 6”, WILL penetrate Yamato’s belt armor. The US 6” Mk-27, base-fuzed shell, WILL penetrate Yamato’s belt armor. Alas, the US 6” Mk-35 is damn close, but no cigar; And smaller than that won’t do the deed.

That basically mean that should a battle close to a range of less than 4000 yards then the 5"/38 would have a chance to penetrate the belt armor on a Takao class heavy cruiser.

This also tells me that range, AOA, and muzzle velocity play a very large role in armor penetration.

Now while this still won't penetrate the belt of Yamato (barring some variable not accounted for), it could certainly do damage to the unarmored parts of the ship, the HE shells could start fires, and the gun could in fact damage the ship. Also don't count out the fact that airburst versions of the shell could damage electronics and optics (radars and gun directors) severely crippling even the largest of ships. They may not sink a capital ship, but they can surely hurt one.

History shows (rather than classroom math, no matter what the grade level is) that near misses by ordinance can do more damage than an actual hit. A jammed rudder for example upon a Jap Fleet CV at Midway comes to mind. So the factor of accuracy might take that into consideration. The larger the ordinance the further away the "hit" which can still do damage. The water's ability to funnel force in a concussive manner is deadly.

But I do believe the tone of some posts on this thread is less than the minimum standards one can expect. Sad really. Hal